MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514466333 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v118i2.915

Changes in Loon (<em>Gavia</em> spp.) and Red-necked Grebe (<em>Podiceps grisegena</em>) Populations in the Lower Matanuska-Susitna Valley, Alaska

2004· article· en· W1514466333 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tamara K. Mills, Brad A. Andres

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsGeographyOccupancyPopulationEcologyPopulation declineWildlifeFisheryBiologyDemographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than two-thirds of the human population of Alaska resides in the south-central portion of the state, where its continued growth is likely to affect some wildlife populations negatively. To assess changes in waterbird populations in this region, we compared counts of Common Loons (Gavia immer), Pacific Loons (G. pacifica), and Red-necked Grebes (Podiceps grisegena) made on Matanuska-Susitina Valley lakes. In general, the number of lakes occupied by loon or grebe pairs decreased between 1987 and 1999. Decreases in the number of lakes occupied by Common Loons were less drastic in the northwest region of the study area than in the southeast region; human development is greater in the southeastern portion of our study area. Contrary to lake occupancy, the percentage of lakes that fledged Common Loon chicks remained stable between years. Because the human population is expected to continue to grow, proactive management of lake use and lakeshore development, coupled with monitoring of loon and grebe occupancy and productivity, is needed to ensure the persistence of these waterbird populations in the lower Matanuska-Susitna Valley.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207